Not sure what topic, I have an insurance question. -first speed ticket in 12yrs period... on mbike 168kmh alleged east of London 401, May 2015 -did you go to trial? no bargained for straight "speed fine=$782", NO stunt driving because 1/6 judges will give you "jail time" in this area, ... so I was told by legal council -did you hire a paralegal, yes for $2,200 tax incl. -TD Meloche Monnex Insurance customer of 25 yrs, never at fault, 7* rated driver Today I get a call from a nice TD rep. saying "your insurance will be cancelled in 1 mth for you/wife/kids" - have a nice day, no alternatives, good luck with your search. "We won't insure 'major convictions' end of story" -TD So any suggestions on where to go, what to say?
Not sure what topic, I have an insurance question.
-first speed ticket in 12yrs period... on mbike 168kmh alleged east of London 401, May 2015
-did you go to trial? no bargained for straight "speed fine=$782", NO stunt driving because 1/6 judges will give you "jail time" in this area, ... so I was told by legal council
-did you hire a paralegal, yes for $2,200 tax incl.
-TD Meloche Monnex Insurance customer of 25 yrs, never at fault, 7* rated driver
Today I get a call from a nice TD rep. saying "your insurance will be cancelled in 1 mth for you/wife/kids" - have a nice day, no alternatives, good luck with your search.
"We won't insure 'major convictions' end of story" -TD
my insurance was renewed without incident early Nov 2015, but now that it expires Nov 2016, NOW the red flag came up, recall MY CONVICTION date was end of Nov 2015, so that spared me ONE YEAR of good timing. Insurance companies go by CONVICTION DATE 3yrs and not offense date May 2015. Demerits disappear in 2yrs Insurance in 3yrs :)
my insurance was renewed without incident early Nov 2015, but now that it expires Nov 2016, NOW the red flag came up, recall MY CONVICTION date was end of Nov 2015, so that spared me ONE YEAR of good timing.
Insurance companies go by CONVICTION DATE 3yrs and not offense date May 2015.
If you can't get coverage through a regular provider, you'll need to go through facility insurance. They provide insurance for everyone, but the rates are astronomical since they only insure those deemed "high risk". Probably also want to look at seeing if your wife and children can get regular coverage without you on their plan. Probably be required to sign a waiver stating you can never operate vehicles they've insured or the coverage would be void.
If you can't get coverage through a regular provider, you'll need to go through facility insurance. They provide insurance for everyone, but the rates are astronomical since they only insure those deemed "high risk". Probably also want to look at seeing if your wife and children can get regular coverage without you on their plan. Probably be required to sign a waiver stating you can never operate vehicles they've insured or the coverage would be void.
Nice registered letter came in the mail 5 days after initial TD phone call making the cancellation official. "1 or more major conviction within the last 3 years". Got my first ins. quote back from a BROKER was $900/yr, now will be $2,400/yr for next 2 yrs. So $3,000 insurance total penalty over 2yrs on top of $800 towing/7days storage during initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law. Never an at fault accident in 38 yrs of driving. No speed ticket or any ticket for 12 yrs. If you do the math on this thread and add 200 for travel to/from impound lot... $7,000 total. And you wonder why people won't stop for cops anymore.
Nice registered letter came in the mail 5 days after initial TD phone call making the cancellation official. "1 or more major conviction within the last 3 years".
Got my first ins. quote back from a BROKER was $900/yr, now will be $2,400/yr for next 2 yrs. So $3,000 insurance total penalty over 2yrs on top of $800 towing/7days storage during initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law.
Never an at fault accident in 38 yrs of driving.
No speed ticket or any ticket for 12 yrs.
If you do the math on this thread and add 200 for travel to/from impound lot...
$7,000 total.
And you wonder why people won't stop for cops anymore.
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you! Now more on this... So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge? I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted.
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you!
Now more on this...
250alp wrote:
...initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law...
So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge?
I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted.
All of which could be avoided by you driving sensibly and not going 68 over the limit. The severe penalties for doing what you did have been in place for several years now. Don't blame the police, don't blame the insurance companies, and don't blame the government. Blame yourself and consider this saga a lesson learned.
250alp wrote:
Nice registered letter came in the mail 5 days after initial TD phone call making the cancellation official. "1 or more major conviction within the last 3 years".
Got my first ins. quote back from a BROKER was $900/yr, now will be $2,400/yr for next 2 yrs. So $3,000 insurance total penalty over 2yrs on top of $800 towing/7days storage during initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law.
Never an at fault accident in 38 yrs of driving.
No speed ticket or any ticket for 12 yrs.
If you do the math on this thread and add 200 for travel to/from impound lot...
$7,000 total.
And you wonder why people won't stop for cops anymore.
All of which could be avoided by you driving sensibly and not going 68 over the limit. The severe penalties for doing what you did have been in place for several years now. Don't blame the police, don't blame the insurance companies, and don't blame the government. Blame yourself and consider this saga a lesson learned.
So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge? I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted. Convicted in absentia??
jsherk wrote:
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you!
Now more on this...
250alp wrote:
...initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law...
So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge?
I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted.
I didn't know that insurance agents have guns and jails. The excessive penalties described here are insurance costs, nothing to do with the police nor even the government. The insurance companies see a correlation between excessive speed and excessive claims so they don't want to insure drivers like that. But sure, it's just easier to blame the police for everything.
jsherk wrote:
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you!.
I didn't know that insurance agents have guns and jails. The excessive penalties described here are insurance costs, nothing to do with the police nor even the government.
The insurance companies see a correlation between excessive speed and excessive claims so they don't want to insure drivers like that.
But sure, it's just easier to blame the police for everything.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
The government makes insurance mandatory and therefore we have to pay for it or else they send their guys with guns to enforce it. The government is the one sending the police to charge for pre-crime speeding when there is no proof that it was unsafe. So the execessive insurance costs are directly related to government intervention. I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us.
argyll wrote:
The excessive penalties described here are insurance costs, nothing to do with the police nor even the government.
The government makes insurance mandatory and therefore we have to pay for it or else they send their guys with guns to enforce it. The government is the one sending the police to charge for pre-crime speeding when there is no proof that it was unsafe. So the execessive insurance costs are directly related to government intervention.
I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us.
I'd love for you to go and tell the family of someone killed by a speeder that you think speed enforcement is not doing what's right. You have consistently failed to reply when asked to comment on whether all speeds that don't result in injury are safe. Can I do 100 in a school zone if I don't hit any one ? What about 150 ? You repeat your mantra that if no-one is hurt then there should be no enforcement but enforcement stops people doing the things that can cause catastrophies. Darwinism is fine if it the driver getting killed but sadly it is often the people not encased in steel who are the victims.
I'd love for you to go and tell the family of someone killed by a speeder that you think speed enforcement is not doing what's right. You have consistently failed to reply when asked to comment on whether all speeds that don't result in injury are safe. Can I do 100 in a school zone if I don't hit any one ? What about 150 ? You repeat your mantra that if no-one is hurt then there should be no enforcement but enforcement stops people doing the things that can cause catastrophies. Darwinism is fine if it the driver getting killed but sadly it is often the people not encased in steel who are the victims.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
If enforcement was so effective then nobody would get killed by speeders! Some speeds are not safe. But speed limits are not about safe speeds. They are just a random numbers on a sign. I have seen 50 zones where you could easily do 100 safely. There are times on the 400 where it is completely safe to be doing 140 easy. Is it a school zone with kids and cars all over the street? Well then if you are doing 100 then you are probably scaring people and swerving in and out of traffice and that is what makes it unsafe. Is it 2am and the street is completely empty? Well then if there is nobody around and no vehicles then maybe it is no unsafe. If enforcement was about proving the speed to be unsafe then I would certainly have a lot less to complain about. Prove to me that the op doing 168 on the 401 was unsafe. Traffic, weather, road conditions, etc all play a part in this. It might have been unsafe, but it also might have been perfectly safe! They want to call it stunt driving, but the average person knows that just driving fast is not the same thing as doing stunts. Simply driving fast is not necessarily unsafe. Simply driving faster than a speed limit is not necessarily unsafe. Speed enforcement is promoted as keeping us safe, so then why not have to prove that it was unsafe? Insurance goes up because you supposedly did something that was unsafe, so why not have to prove that it was unsafe?
argyll wrote:
I'd love for you to go and tell the family of someone killed by a speeder that you think speed enforcement is not doing what's right.
If enforcement was so effective then nobody would get killed by speeders!
Some speeds are not safe. But speed limits are not about safe speeds. They are just a random numbers on a sign.
I have seen 50 zones where you could easily do 100 safely. There are times on the 400 where it is completely safe to be doing 140 easy.
Is it a school zone with kids and cars all over the street? Well then if you are doing 100 then you are probably scaring people and swerving in and out of traffice and that is what makes it unsafe. Is it 2am and the street is completely empty? Well then if there is nobody around and no vehicles then maybe it is no unsafe.
If enforcement was about proving the speed to be unsafe then I would certainly have a lot less to complain about.
Prove to me that the op doing 168 on the 401 was unsafe. Traffic, weather, road conditions, etc all play a part in this. It might have been unsafe, but it also might have been perfectly safe! They want to call it stunt driving, but the average person knows that just driving fast is not the same thing as doing stunts.
Simply driving fast is not necessarily unsafe. Simply driving faster than a speed limit is not necessarily unsafe. Speed enforcement is promoted as keeping us safe, so then why not have to prove that it was unsafe? Insurance goes up because you supposedly did something that was unsafe, so why not have to prove that it was unsafe?
How do you know the road is empty. People say, "the road was empty" but then get pulled over so clearly they couldn't see the road was empty. A road at 2 am is often empty but the one time it isn't with a pedestrian maybe the vehicle should be travelling at a slower speed. I don't disagree that some speed limits should be raised but your concept of no speed limits and prosecute those that hit someone is just insanity.
jsherk wrote:
Is it a school zone with kids and cars all over the street? Well then if you are doing 100 then you are probably scaring people and swerving in and out of traffice and that is what makes it unsafe. Is it 2am and the street is completely empty? Well then if there is nobody around and no vehicles then maybe it is no unsafe.
How do you know the road is empty. People say, "the road was empty" but then get pulled over so clearly they couldn't see the road was empty. A road at 2 am is often empty but the one time it isn't with a pedestrian maybe the vehicle should be travelling at a slower speed.
I don't disagree that some speed limits should be raised but your concept of no speed limits and prosecute those that hit someone is just insanity.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
My concept is that there needs to be harm, injury or damage. Harm can be defined as simply as "being scared", so nobody has to be hit or injured and nothing has be damaged for this to apply. An example would be erratic driving like weaving in and out of traffic on the 401. I guess if I ever run for Premier's office, I won't get your vote!
My concept is that there needs to be harm, injury or damage. Harm can be defined as simply as "being scared", so nobody has to be hit or injured and nothing has be damaged for this to apply. An example would be erratic driving like weaving in and out of traffic on the 401.
I guess if I ever run for Premier's office, I won't get your vote!
Again, so it's OK to drive like a bat out of hell along a road and the only problem comes when you pass the person who you didn't see because you were going too fast for that class of road ? Do you wear a seatbelt ? Why bother - you only need it when you crash ? If you aren't crashing then what's the point ? Aaaaah, because you MIGHT crash and you can't predict when that would be.........
Again, so it's OK to drive like a bat out of hell along a road and the only problem comes when you pass the person who you didn't see because you were going too fast for that class of road ?
Do you wear a seatbelt ? Why bother - you only need it when you crash ? If you aren't crashing then what's the point ? Aaaaah, because you MIGHT crash and you can't predict when that would be.........
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
"I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us." Last I checked you don't have the swear and oath to the Queen "I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge my duties as a member of the (insert name of municipality) Police Services Board faithfully, impartially and according to the Police Services Act, any other Act, and any regulation, rule or by-law. So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)" Check your facts
"I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us."
Last I checked you don't have the swear and oath to the Queen
"I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge my duties as a member of the (insert name of municipality) Police Services Board faithfully, impartially and according to the Police Services Act, any other Act, and any regulation, rule or by-law.
So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)"
You also quoted incorrectly... Reg. 144/91: OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS (and seems duplicated in Reg. 268/10: GENERAL) 2. The oath or affirmation of office to be taken by a police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable shall be in one of the following forms: I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Her Majesty the Queen and to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law. So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.) or I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law. So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.) But yes I see there is an option to either take an oath to the queen or not. However both oaths are to CANADA which is a crown corporation owned/run/governed ultimately by the Queen and both are still NOT to the people.
You also quoted incorrectly...
Reg. 144/91: OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS (and seems duplicated in Reg. 268/10: GENERAL)
2. The oath or affirmation of office to be taken by a police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable shall be in one of the following forms:
I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Her Majesty the Queen and to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law.
So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)
or
I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law.
So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)
But yes I see there is an option to either take an oath to the queen or not. However both oaths are to CANADA which is a crown corporation owned/run/governed ultimately by the Queen and both are still NOT to the people.
Guys please brush up on your traffic engineering. Speed limits are set two ways; 1) Dictatorship or 2) Scientific/Engineering method via traffic survey. The safest speed of traffic is the speed that 85% of the traffic is going at or below, that is called the 85th percentile speed and it is shaped like a bell curve. It is not debateable unless you want to talk about "school zones" or "construction zones". Go to stop100.ca and you will see MTO traffic studies from 1993 or 23 years ago that will clearly show traffic speeds have not changed in 23 yrs. Long story long, I prefer to say I was going 38km/hr over the speed of traffic on a long straight section on a clear dry day for a very short period. Perhaps you are familiar with Stuart Highway in Australia. A recent 4 yr experiment of "no speed limit" looks like coming to an end with a change in government, ZERO speed fatalities. So clearly there is more to safe driving than posting pretty signs that are not based on science.
Guys please brush up on your traffic engineering. Speed limits are set two ways; 1) Dictatorship or 2) Scientific/Engineering method via traffic survey. The safest speed of traffic is the speed that 85% of the traffic is going at or below, that is called the 85th percentile speed and it is shaped like a bell curve. It is not debateable unless you want to talk about "school zones" or "construction zones". Go to stop100.ca and you will see MTO traffic studies from 1993 or 23 years ago that will clearly show traffic speeds have not changed in 23 yrs. Long story long, I prefer to say I was going 38km/hr over the speed of traffic on a long straight section on a clear dry day for a very short period. Perhaps you are familiar with Stuart Highway in Australia. A recent 4 yr experiment of "no speed limit" looks like coming to an end with a change in government, ZERO speed fatalities. So clearly there is more to safe driving than posting pretty signs that are not based on science.
I got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
